Something I`ve been wondering about for a bit. What`s the thinking behind a sloping top tube? Is there a reason other than marketing something new and different? Thanks.

It may have been that a few years back when it was new and different. Nowadays it is just the standard configuration. I generally prefer the looks of a horizontal top tube, but hype and claims aside I don't really see any functional advantage or disadvantage to either style for a person of normal proportions like myself. For people with short legs relative to their torsos, they make finding a bike that fits more possible.

This looks to me like the century bike I'll want as a modern yet somewhat traditional successor to my beloved Bridgestone RB-1 (not that I'll be retiring Ribby). Other than the wheels and possibly the handlebars, it is spec'd almost exactly how I would do it if I were building the bike myself. The dimensions are nearly and exact duplicate of my Bridgestone. The True Temper OX Platinum tubing is not exotic, but very good quality and a bit lighter than the equally good Ishiwata tubing on the old bike. I really can't see myself buying a plastic bike.

Check out the Fargo. Just the thing for desert riding apparently. I counted 5 water bottle cages with a possible 6th if you swap out the frame pump for one that'll mount along with a water bottle cage.

.... should'a named it the Camel.....

I like the sounds of the Pistola. But as a longer day ride sort of bike I'd think some fender and rack mounts would be nice to at least have as an option to broaden the mission profile..... at least for my sort of area where if it's not raining then be patient and it'll catch up to ya.....

Something I`ve been wondering about for a bit. What`s the thinking behind a sloping top tube? Is there a reason other than marketing something new and different? Thanks.

If it matters:

1. The top tube is slightly shorter which has the potential of making the bicycle slightly lighter.
2. The main triangle of the fram is a little smaller which has the potential of making the bicycle slightly stiffer.

There will be arguments against these theories that state that the stiffness is given back by the longer unsupported structure of the saddle and that the seatpost is longer, negaing the improvement in weight. The counter argument is that the stiffness of the frame to the saddle is not a performance issue whereas the stiffness of the bottom brackes to wheel mouns is for power delivery purposes. The seatpost argument is weak because the saddle is in the same place for both designs so there is the same amount of total tubing between the bottom bracket and the saddle.

Are the performance issues real.............most bicycles at the TDF this year had sloping top tubes (known as compact frame design). One would assume that those concerned with performance most would pick wisely.

Are the performance issues real.............most bicycles at the TDF this year had sloping top tubes (known as compact frame design). One would assume that those concerned with performance most would pick wisely.

That is the weakest argument of them all. Pro racers ride what their sponsors provide for them. Lance won all of his Tours de France on bikes with horizontal top tubes.

Those bikes and parts that made it into production usually did so after Lance raced the prototype.

I have some thoughts that Lance raced with a horizontal top tube for his whole career because he wanted to. Trek often mentions in their racing articles that the designers were careful to modify their technology so that Lances bikes rode the way he was used to. In other words, he was such a special rider that designs were fit to him, not the opposit.

As to the weakness of the argument, I'm pretty sure that if the designers thought that horizontal tube bikes were the fastest, that's what they would design, that's what the manufacturers would sell (using the win on Sunday sell on Monday theory) and that's what the sponsors would provide.

This looks to me like the century bike I'll want as a modern yet somewhat traditional successor to my beloved Bridgestone RB-1 (not that I'll be retiring Ribby).

I was wondering about that. Looks like the Ribby will be in good company with this ride. You know, I'm not sure I've ever read your thoughts on titanium. In my stable which includes steel, carbon and aluminum, the Ti bike gets the nod more often than not, and it' got a traditional straight top tube. Now if they just made a great Ti bike with fancy lugs...

I was wondering about that. Looks like the Ribby will be in good company with this ride. You know, I'm not sure I've ever read your thoughts on titanium. In my stable which includes steel, carbon and aluminum, the Ti bike gets the nod more often than not, and it' got a traditional straight top tube. Now if they just made a great Ti bike with fancy lugs...

My thoughts on titanium are that I think it is probably the best of the currently popular frame materials for me, but it is out of my price range. I know there are more affordable frames like Habanero, but they don't appeal to me more than good steel. If I had the coin, I'd be thinking custom Ti.

My thoughts on titanium are that I think it is probably the best of the currently popular frame materials for me, but it is out of my price range. I know there are more affordable frames like Habanero, but they don't appeal to me more than good steel. If I had the coin, I'd be thinking custom Ti.

On the latest write ups over here- where a variety of bikes- made of a variety of materials- are tested- There is only one material that the testers like. C.F. Ti comes out as flexible- Steel comes out as Heavy and Aluminium is too harsh a ride. Knowing that the testers are probably racers and aged about 20- I am not surprised.

But as most of us know- Ti is a good ride- Steel can be heavy but not by much and aluminium can give a very good ride. It all depends on the type of riding you want to do and the amount you want to spend.

I have both titanium {litespeed**and carbon{Scott** road bikes, set up the same with Dura Ace components.
I love the aesthetics of the titanium bike. The beautiful welds, the differing shapes of the tubes. The quickness of the steering and overall handling.
I love the ride of the carbon bike, especially on rough rual roads that I mostly ride. And when the road points upward there is a difference that can be felt in the lightweight of the carbon.
I am fortunate enough to have both to ride. If I had to choose only one, I would probably go with the carbon f.

My first bike is a used salsa la Raza. It is the only bike I have ever owned. I have been riding for three years, each year I have logged more miles and had more fun than the previous year. I am getting the itch to purchase a new bike. Loving my La Raza I have been waiting anxiously for salsa to release a new road bike, now they have 2 models to select from.

MY question is about the scandium frame on the Podio. I would appreciate comments from bikers familiar with this material. What have you liked or found lacking from scandium frames? I am not a racer but like the notion of having a zippier bike than a steel frame w/o getting a too harsh of ride in the bargain; Is that what I would get from a scandium bike? Thanks for your responses. RF

That looks like a nice ride... but is it just me or does a steel "long distance" frame without fittings for a pannier rack seem kinda useless. I only run with a rack on my bike during multi-day trips, but being forced to use a trailer for these applications is a big turn off.

That looks like a nice ride... but is it just me or does a steel "long distance" frame without fittings for a pannier rack seem kinda useless. I only run with a rack on my bike during multi-day trips, but being forced to use a trailer for these applications is a big turn off.

The bike is not intended for loaded touring, but for long day rides like centuries and supported multi-day tours. No need to carry much on the bike for that kind of riding.